Canvas Rider - Forum

[musicplayer]

Does it ever occur we don't give a f*** if they play and instrument?
If I like the way it sounds, I listen to it.

Lol, for me, as long as it sounds good and catchy to my ears.

Now, many artists play instrument. I mean, it helps A LOT. But I don't know which ones that don't. (you can consider your voice an instrument)

Yes, you can say "you have low standards in music", I can basically say "jazz is so boring, go **** yourself". I mean, just having jazz only for one hour in your car is one of the awesomest thing you never knew was possible. But it's like this :
- Anti-abortion calling pro-abortionists "baby murderers". Do you think they have a different definition of "living baby" than you? Don't expect to change opinions on abortion easily. (I'm anti-abortion, but people should do what they want with their beliefs)
- Democrats vs Republicans = both sides saying to the other "stop thinking about politics and yourselves and think about your country"
- Whether that death penalty should be allowed

Maybe the world is falling apart after all. December is coming up. Music is being produced instead of being created. Movies are unoriginal and create sequels or remakes. Video games, too. Politics. Gas prices. Global Warming (which I don't believe is 100% true as media says) and Pollution. Nuclear power plants. Inflation and devaluation of the dollar. Conspiracy Theories. 2012 is now, so get ready for the Apocalypse. (I can hear Christians saying "the end is near". ) Time for countries to remove the internet, and make it offline (they are able to, already). Time for countries to start a nuclear war. Time for Lindsey Lohan to stop screwing up. Wait, the world would destroy itself before that happens.

THE END IS NEAR!!!!!!!!!

[armator]

I think it's meaning to show you really how much time those professionals spend (hours) and after those many hours they even photoshop her... And girls will buy the makeup thinking oh just 20 minutes in the morning, and they'll look like the girl. Double deceiving.

[idkidkidk]

Actually, it's only intention is to place Dove in a higher moral standing compared to other companies. Oh, we just revealed to you what all the companies (including us, but shh....) do to the models to our advertisements. So hey, don't get too down on yourself if you don't look like them, but you still want to look better, right? Well, you can trust us.

Gruen Transfer did a great segment on this ad.

[Isenki]

Our perception of beauty has changed along with the society we live in. I wouldn't call it distorted.

Check out this venus figurine from the Stone Age:



In the Stone Age, this was the ideal for beauty and yes, it was unrealistic to expect all women to have access to the quantities of food required to make this shape. But it was a sign that the woman had a great source of nourishment, was likely to survive, and had good prospects for child bearing.

Today, people don't eat the same foods they did in the Stone Age, and this shape is no longer indicative of good health/nutrition.
If you have this shape it is more likely you eat too many hamburgers and seldom leave your couch. In the present day, slimmer people tend to have better prospects for longevity and good health than fat people, and thus are more attractive.

[Strobacaxi]

Isenki loves scientifical explanations.

[nasifistiak]

isenki ftw

[armator]

Just as in the middle ages beautiful was being pale skinned and fat!
Fat: being wealthy enough to pay for lots of food
Pale: not having to work out in the sun; being inside all day not made to work.

[Isenki]

Just as in the middle ages beautiful was being pale skinned and fat!
Fat: being wealthy enough to pay for lots of food
Pale: not having to work out in the sun; being inside all day not made to work.

Exactly, and today being fat and pasty means you're either poor, or lazy, or possibly both.

[Kazniti]

Our perception of beauty has changed along with the society we live in. I wouldn't call it distorted.

Check out this venus figurine from the Stone Age:



In the Stone Age, this was the ideal for beauty and yes, it was unrealistic to expect all women to have access to the quantities of food required to make this shape. But it was a sign that the woman had a great source of nourishment, was likely to survive, and had good prospects for child bearing.

Today, people don't eat the same foods they did in the Stone Age, and this shape is no longer indicative of good health/nutrition.
If you have this shape it is more likely you eat too many hamburgers and seldom leave your couch. In the present day, slimmer people tend to have better prospects for longevity and good health than fat people, and thus are more attractive.

Instead of a sociological approach (did I use that right?), why not an evolutionary and psychological one?

Just pullin out some big words no biggy.

What we actually see as attractive (not beautiful I admit but I have this knowledge and when else is it gonna come up?), is based on basically which woman were most likely to survive. The cave men who liked to razizzle with skinny (not slim, skinny), tiny boobed woman with skin marks and what not, were less likely to have their children pass on their genes as the children are weaker, and less likely to survive. The ones that liked the girls that had clear skin, wide hips big tits long legs blah blah, were more likely to pass on their genes to future generations. So thats why the majority of us today like that, except for the weirdo's, and genetic mutations.

Thought this brings to question, why wasn't homosexuality phased out through evolution? We know you don't choose it, yet it doesn't seem to be genetic....... I wonder.

[Recordbreak]

Thought this brings to question, why wasn't homosexuality phased out through evolution? We know you don't choose it, yet it doesn't seem to be genetic....... I wonder.

I believe from my health class, that homosexuality is a trait, passed on from parent. I also think I learned it's strongly influenced on your own decisions, so I'm not sure for real. That's a pretty hard question.

[Kazniti]

Thought this brings to question, why wasn't homosexuality phased out through evolution? We know you don't choose it, yet it doesn't seem to be genetic....... I wonder.

I believe from my health class, that homosexuality is a trait, passed on from parent. I also think I learned it's strongly influenced on your own decisions, so I'm not sure for real. That's a pretty hard question.

I don't think sexual attraction has anything to do with sociological influence and setting, but I do think it influences the choices homosexuals make as to who they..... do butt stuff to. For instance, a gay brought up in texas 50 years ago in a Christian family isn't exactly gonna be rampaging the joint as the town gay. Thought this still doesn't explain why they weren't phased out through evolution.

[Isenki]

Our perception of beauty has changed along with the society we live in. I wouldn't call it distorted.

Check out this venus figurine from the Stone Age:



In the Stone Age, this was the ideal for beauty and yes, it was unrealistic to expect all women to have access to the quantities of food required to make this shape. But it was a sign that the woman had a great source of nourishment, was likely to survive, and had good prospects for child bearing.

Today, people don't eat the same foods they did in the Stone Age, and this shape is no longer indicative of good health/nutrition.
If you have this shape it is more likely you eat too many hamburgers and seldom leave your couch. In the present day, slimmer people tend to have better prospects for longevity and good health than fat people, and thus are more attractive.

Instead of a sociological approach (did I use that right?), why not an evolutionary and psychological one?

Just pullin out some big words no biggy.

What we actually see as attractive (not beautiful I admit but I have this knowledge and when else is it gonna come up?), is based on basically which woman were most likely to survive. The cave men who liked to razizzle with skinny (not slim, skinny), tiny boobed woman with skin marks and what not, were less likely to have their children pass on their genes as the children are weaker, and less likely to survive. The ones that liked the girls that had clear skin, wide hips big tits long legs blah blah, were more likely to pass on their genes to future generations. So thats why the majority of us today like that, except for the weirdo's, and genetic mutations.

Thought this brings to question, why wasn't homosexuality phased out through evolution? We know you don't choose it, yet it doesn't seem to be genetic....... I wonder.

Oooh. Getting sassy, I see. But with humans, the sociological approach is the evolutionary approach. Notice how you said basically exactly the same thing I did, but with more 'blah blah' and misspellings?

A quick Google search reveals that there ARE actually evolutionary processes that can explain homosexuality by themselves, though I think most scientists see it as a combination of pre-natal hormone exposure and genetics. See:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ality.html

[Kazniti]

^ difference here is long term vs short term, anything in the past 10 000 years has done nothing to drastically change us. Though you are right it ended up being a talk about sociology and evolution lol.
Though I should add, that I used the term psychology because it is how we are born, that was where the confusion lay (for example, the difference between psychopath and sociopath).